OT Has w7 slowed down recently

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I had thought that MS had said they will be porting Windows to ARM
systems...

Well, they've already done that with Windows 8. They've also produced
ARM variants of some of their big apps, such as MS Office.

But none of the vast number of other Windows applications in the world
will run on the ARM unless they are recompiled.

In fact, ARM-based Windows 8 machines only support WinRT programs, so
in fact just recompiling won't work, either - they will need a
substantial rewrite to use the new runtime (as opposed to using
Win32/64 or .NET).

Given that a fair bit of my use of RISC OS (native to ARM) is on an
emulator on a 'PC' (running Linux) I see a certain irony in that. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve
Thackery
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Which is fine *if* the *user* can *choose* to modify this as and when
they may choose. Not fine if only the hardware maker can do this, and
refuses to permit it, or makes hardware where it is essentially
impossible after manufacture.

Hmmmm..... that kind of thing is important to only a few people though,
so I don't think you can argue that it is important *in principle*.

I think I can. The point of "freedom" and "free and informed choice" is
that it needs to be an option for all. Not just limited (by big companies)
to a few who have to struggle though hoops of fire. As I've said
previously, it does not bother me that most people 'choose' sic Windows.
What bothers me is the situation that promotes this without any real
conscious choice or awareness of alternatives for many of them.


Why should I? I bought it for what it is. If I'd wanted something
else I'd have bought something else. Are you *honestly* annoyed that
you can't install a different OS into your television? Should Sony be
forced to allow it?

I'm not "annoyed" by any of this. But I do think that anyone who wants to
*should* be free to change the software/firmware in items that depend upon
it. I agree that *does* mean they would have to take their own risks, and
accept it may need them to learn or put in some work. So not something I'd
expect everyone to choose to do. But it should be *their* choice. Not
blocked by a big company. Not left to pass below there awareness as a
potential option.

Do you ever read 'Spectrum' magazine? (IEEE monthly rag.) That has had a
number of items on this arguing in the direction I'm presenting. And also
describing how engineers can hack devices to work in ways they and others
regard as an improvement. The point here is about offering choices which
let people choose have something they prefer. So promotes competition and
choice for consumers, even those who don't do the hacking for themself.

Take, for example, the recent case of the Sony NAS system that developed a
bug which stopped it working correctly for many weeks. Sony and other
companies played "pass the parcel" with ownership of the problem whilst the
poor dumb buyers were locked out. The users only had a 'contract' with the
retailer they'd bought from. Not Sony or the other companies involved who
were the cause of the problem. So, legally, either the users or the shops
involved would have taken the hit.

They *did* eventually sort this out, after some public pressure, fuss, and
embarassment. But if they had washed their hands, what then for the users
of what had become a costly housebrick?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:

Why does Jim select computers to make a stand on, whilst not
complaining about being unable to install Linux or RO on his telly?

See an earlier posting I just wrote to note the mistaken assumption you
have. This situation is perhaps most obvious and glaring in 'computers'.
But it can, indeed, arise in other situations. As JGM points out, how much
this matters in an individial case will vary. But the principle is the same
if we wish to have the ability to make oue own choices in a free and
informed manner.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:53:34 +0100, Steve Thackery
wrote:

Why does Jim select computers to make a stand on, whilst not
complaining about being unable to install Linux or RO on his telly?

Because, you clueless halfwit, a PC has always been a general purpose
device that the USER can decide what it does, not the manufacturer.

And the user has purchased the unit. It is theirs. They should therefore be
entitled to change software, OS, as *they* choose. it is up to them if they
want to choose commercial items they pay for, or ones that come 'free'. It
is up to them to decide if they prefer 'closed' or 'open source', etc.

Micro$oft now want to force you to run M$ operating systems on all new
hardware. Not only that, I shouldn't wonder that they want to force you
to run M$ only apps. on "their" computers. Once they've got you by the
balls, they'll start squeezing even more and charge you for running
apps. you rent from them on the OS you rent from then on the (what used
to be) general purpose computer you have laid out good money to buy.

Do you get it yet?

I can't say that MS *will* do the above. But their track record (including
on court cases) gives me no confidence that they won't if they have the
chance. A big company gets big and stays big by doing whatever it can to
extract money from 'customers' and get them to stay with that company
rather than an possible alternative.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:


And these are *not* PCs! ARM will NOT run x86 code, so they won't run
any of the millions of Windows applications out there. They won't run
any OS prior to W8. At the moment, this has nothing to do with PCs.

Not quite that simple. I'm typing this now on a 'personal computer' that
runs RISC OS and runs it on a native ARM system. I has all the types of
user app people expect - wordprocessor, spreadsheet, email, webbrowser,
etc. It has a desktop GUI, I can produce 'C' (and Fortran and BASIC) progs
on it, etc, etc.

What you are doing is simply falling blindly back into the habituation that
'PC' = 'computer' = 'hardware + windows + standard windows apps" and the
making a self-referential circular argument as your case. :-)

However, IF Microsoft were ever mad enough to require secure boot with
no option to switch it off on normal Intel x86-based PCs, then I'd be
at the front of the campaign to change it, alongside Jim and yourself.

But you don't give a damn for those of us who may prefer to use ARM based
machines for a 'desktop PC'? You want freedom yourself, but not as a
'principle' for all. Just for you?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, at 08:25:41h +0100, Steve Thackery declared:

They [ARM] won't run any OS prior to W8.

More nonsense.

People have been running a variety of OSes on ARM for
many years now -- RiscOS, Android, Bada, BSD, iOS,
Linux, Plan 9 from Bell Labs, Inferno, Solaris, webOS

On Monday, May 14th, 2012, at 21:21:15h +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But the great thing about open systems is that you can often get them
to do the job better, or get them to do other jobs as well.

Exactly!

If people just want to stick to the installed version
then that is their choice, but the option to change should
always be open.

What would people think if they bought a car made by Lada
and it was "locked down" such that you could only run it on
fuel provided by Royal Dutch Shell at their branded service
stations because the cap could only be unlocked with a key
present there?

On Monday, May 14th, 2012, at 17:33:31h +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

But nowdays distros like *buntu tend to come with a set of apps that seem
to me would cover most home/office tasks, and I've not had to install a
'driver' for anything. My printers, scanners, etc, just work.

That is the big problem with Linux Mint -- everything works and most
proprietary drivers are included, and it is even easier to install
than Windoze.

That is another aspect which is being overlooked -- most people never
install Windoze because it is already on their system so they do not
know how to install an OS on their PC.

J G Miller wrote:

That is another aspect which is being overlooked -- most people never
install Windoze because it is already on their system so they do not
know how to install an OS on their PC.

It's juvenile to write 'Windoze' for Windows.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
J G Miller wrote:

That is another aspect which is being overlooked -- most people never
install Windoze because it is already on their system so they do not
know how to install an OS on their PC.

It's juvenile to write 'Windoze' for Windows.

It's only those who 'know better than to use it' who do. The rest of us
(as we obviously haven't a clue what we're doing) don't.
--
Ian